Hope vs. Fear: Comparing European and American Policies toward Iran, M. Mohamadi, The Daily Star

The Daily Star (a Lebanese newspaper)

Mrs. Ebadi's 2003 Peace Nobel Prize is a wonderful event for reformists and
human rights activist in Iran. There is no doubt that the awarding of the
prize to Ms. Ebadi was intended as a positive signal to Iranians while they
are in the nadir of their political struggle toward non-violent
transformation to democracy. Such recognitions as this prize convey a
broader message from Europeans that the outside world is not totally
indifferent to issues which are of concern to ordinary people in Iran. By
contrast, neo-cons in the U.S. and their friends in Israel are beating on
the drums of war and threaten to smash Iran's nuclear power plants by war or
its political extensions, that is by striking Bushehr facilities or sending
the case to the UN Security Council. There is also talk of attacking Iran in
the Bush's second term. Shirin Ebadi's Nobel highlights the differences
between the U.S and European policies toward Iran and the Middle East in
general.

The signal that is usually sent by the U.S. administrations and media to
Iranian people and government is little more than threats. There is nothing
about hope. Iranian people watch the White House briefings, decisions of the
U.S. Congress and the editorials of US magazines and all they can see is a
giant iron fist. The European signal, however, is one of support and
constructive criticism for the Iranian people and their reformers.
This Ebadi's prize is a message to the Iranian people and to the Muslim
world that the fight for rights is at the center for matters to the
Europeans-their civil society institutions and governments. The fight for
human rights is unfortunately a second hand instrument for justifying war
for the U.S. administrations. European leaders appeared jubilant over the
selection of an Iranian woman who works as an advocate for promoting the
rights of women and children in Iran. They celebrated Ebadi's dedication to
"tolerant coexistence and an understanding between cultures." In the
meanwhile, the spokesmen at the White House and the State Department
contented themselves with issued dry congratulations.
The voice of most of the Iranian reformist artist's and intellectual's
voices can be heard in European media. By contrast one hears in the American
mainstream media only about Mojahedin Khalq, Reza Pahlavi, and Rafsanjani's
and Khomeini's family members. Top American journalists usually interview
"political nobodies" as the new voices of Iranians, ignoring Iranian
intellectuals and political activists who are under pressure and at the same
time have critical approach to the U.S. foreign policies i.e. "attacking and
puppet making." American polity prefers building political alternatives or
puppets for "rogue" regimes among forces that are located outside the Muslim
societies (Chalabi for Iraq, Karzai for Afghanistan, or Reza Pahalvi for
Iran), while Europeans have more knowledge and respect for forces inside
these societies. The main European actors consider internal forces more
effective than immigrants in the transitional periods.
The U.S. administrations and media hosts and guests do not usually prefer
talking about or criticizing Iran's internal and external policies in a
space of dialogue and interactive understanding. Rather they prefer the tone
of arrogance and ultimatums. Europeans do talk and criticize besides sending
eventual arrogant messages. The U.S. usually unilaterally negotiates with
representatives of appointed political bodies for her own interests in the
region, while Europeans negotiate with representatives of both appointed and
elected bodies. The Iran-U.S. negotiations are usually held in darkness,
while Europeans negotiate in broad daylight.
Europe now is more open to "others" and more secure, and the U.S. is more
closed and less secure. The foreign policy discourse in the U.S. is centered
on fear. WMD is the monster to scare citizens of the West and threat others
who "are not with us". But the developing nations don't need threats but
hope to promote democracy, civil society and human rights. European
discourse in foreign policy is more focused on human rights and democracy
discourse leading to dialogue and non-violent action, while the WMD
discourse of the U.S. is directed to containment, intervention, and military
attack, leading first to demonization and then occupation.
Without vindication of human rights, substantial peace and security is
impossible, while in WMD discourse security comes before the rights.
Europeans mostly push the Muslim world into recognizing that Islam and
modern ideas like human rights and democracy could go hand in hand. The
Europeans and Iranian public spheres have similar ideas about the forces and
methods of changes, sharing this idea that Iranian people should fight for
their rights and democracy. Both sides are also against any foreign
intervention; they both emphasize on adopting lawful and peaceful means for
radical changes. American administrations usually do not care about
international and internal laws. The main U.S. policy toward her so-called
enemies is the " do-not-care" policy.
Europeans had been closely watching social and cultural events in Iran,
while Americans are mostly interested in political events. The difference
between 'society-oriented' and 'power-oriented' approaches can be seen in
their media. Europeans have a cultural and civilizational approach besides
political and economic approaches to the Middle East while most of the
politicians and players in the U.S. have only political and economic
interests, and look at Islam as a monolithic religion to legitimize their
causes and interests. American citizens can rarely hear about different
readings of Islam and Muslims' cultural heritage in their mainstream media.
The looting of Iraq's cultural heritage is a good example of the
consequences of this approach for the Middle East.

Majid Mohammadi
Department of Sociology
Ward Melville Social & Behavioral Sciences Building
SUNY-Stony Brook